Comments by "Iain Mc" (@iainmc9859) on "What Does Celtic Even Mean? From the Ancient Celts to the Celtic Nations of Today" video.

  1. What's your first source in a 'Celtic' language describing their language/kingdom/culture as being Celtic? As much as I call myself a Celt, and am proud of it, the only literary sources in the Ancient period are not written by native Celtic speakers. By the time we are in the Dark Ages (post Romans buggering off, pre-unified Kingdom of Scotland) people writing in Celtic languages are describing themselves or their neighbours as being Erse, Scots, Dalriadans, Picts, Cymric, British, Kernow or Sasunn Relying on secondary sources (Greek and Roman) for what Celtic speaking people called themselves is hanging your cultural coat on a shoogly peg.
    4
  2.  @damionkeeling3103  I think you make my point exactly. Outside sources (Greek/Roman) may refer to those that live north west of the 'Civilised' world as being Celtic, rather like the developed world labelled people as 'Eskimo' who lived in the north of the American continent. Its not the term they used for themselves, neither is the term 'Inuit' an acceptable cultural/civilisational term to the people themselves, who view themselves as being smaller distinct units. The name of Vercingetorix's father is neither here nor there. Its the name of an individual through the rather murky lens of Julius Caesar. I am not doubting that people north west of the Greek/Roman world had overlaps of art, language, religion, hierarchy etc. That's not my point at all. I'm not even doubting that Celtic may be a convenient nomenclature for that civilisation at the present time, either in Britain or mainland Europe. My point is was this a name given by outsiders to that whole civilisation. The question remains - at what point through a written Celtic language do a diverse culture/civilisation start to call themselves Celtic (Source & Date).
    2
  3. Sorry J Boss, you're wrong. Plenty of people call themselves Celts, either by nationality, language, perceived ethnicity or DNA analysis. The question I pose is when an individual or group of people self-define as 'Celtic' and then leave documentary or physical evidence behind. Specifically I question the accuracy of ancient Greco-Latin sources as defining other cultures as Celtic. I have no doubt that what we call Celto-Iberians as falling into this 'other' category and not being Greco-Latins, although that is date subjective as the south of France was a Greco-Latin colony pretty early on. This is of course also ignoring the Phoenician and Carthaginian influence on Iberia as well.
    1
  4. Thank you for the response. Unfortunately I missed your past tense; however you didn't clearly define the period you referred to, only mentioning tombstones and pottery evidence. You need to cite your sources to assert claims that Romanticism was simply 'Biblical fanatacism', although I'm not sure what you mean by the phrase. (not that this is an exercise in the writing of footnotes). Neither do you define your source for linguists that do not defend the connection of insular P&Q Celtic to Gaulish and other transcontinental Celtic languages. It would also help if your named your 'number one textbook' on Celtic languages. I take note of your endonymic evidence from western Iberia and southern France, which rather supports my initial comment on the site about 'self-identification' as Celtic, which I agree is largely the result of the Romanticist and Nationalist movements of the 19th century. To this extent we are arguing the same point. I did use loosely the term Celto-Iberian (meaning the Celts in Iberia) but avoided using the word Celtiberians. It is worth pointing out there was no hard and fast borders between one tribal grouping and another. This was not done out of ignorance, as Celtiberian was a loose heading used in classical times and there is still no definitive agreed list of tribes or tribal borders that fall under the generic modern heading Celtiberian today (did Celtiberians self-define as Celtiberians, probably not); although I think the spirit of the phrase is the fluid mixing of Celtic peoples and the pre-Celtic Iberians. No hard and fast cultural, genetic, linguistic or artistic borders. In conclusion, I think we are largely making the same point regarding the issue of self-identification issues in contrast to the problems of cultural labelling from outwith (classical sources in this case). Feel free to stick to Celts only coming from southern France and western Iberia. You will hopefully forgive me for erring on the side of a linguistic, artistic, genetic diaspora across Europe that went by different tribal names but had many cultural overlaps, who probably did not define themselves as Celtic, as a useful shorthand, until the 19th century.  @jboss1073 
    1
  5. Thank you for your prompt references. I shall certainly try to source them and read over them. I largely think that we tend to agree in most matters (the modernity of self-identification) although we may differ in the overall cultural overview. Those people of southern France and western Iberia that used the word Celt on their pottery and tombstones didn't develop their culture in either geographical or historical isolation, but as a process of migration of Indo-Europeans that developed many distinct but related hybrid agricultural and pasturalist societies in the pre-classical age. I do note that you originally said 19th century Romanticism sprung from Biblical fanatacism; which is rather different from Biblical Romanticism. Early 19th century Romanticism certainly did not develop out of a profound biblical or religious belief but out of a rejection, in general, of neo-classicism (artistic and literary) and the 'Ancien Regime', as well as a move towards democracy and universal suffrage. I do however totally accept that you probably meant that the political development of national creation myths came about at the same time as Romanticism; but don't let me put words in your mouth. We wouldn't agree on a strong Biblical fanaticism to these national creation myths, or the literary or artistic movements, although obviously people then as now made reference to the Bible as a cultural keystone of western society. If anything I'd probably say that Romanticism glorified nature itself and not its inferred maker. Not quite on the same page is my own pet theory, and I would be interested to hear your thoughts on it, that the word celt is derived from what I believe is the ancient Phoenician word for a flat metal ingot about the size of a modern chessboard, generally in the shape of a cow hide, used in trade. I suspect that as, shall we call them Central Europeans, were some of the first iron workers that this may have a linguistic root connection. Let me clarify, I don't mean Celts and Pheonicians are genetically or culturally closely related, (the Celtic/Scythian/Pharaoh's daughter stories are absolutely just creation myths I'm sure) just that as 'Central Europeans' were one of the first proponents of iron smelting that the trade ingot and the people who worked it could be connected, although I haven't found any studies on the subject, and it simply could be a remarkable coincidence. @jboss1073 
    1